Waking Up in Vegas
Now, I can understand that it's not very good for the federal government's image for federal employees at conferences to go all Katy Perry on agency time. Conferences are a chance to learn things, share ideas, work on joint projects, etc., and not necessarily to gamble, drink, get facial peels, and kick Penn and Teller out of their hotel suite. And none of those things should happen on the government dime, obviously.
But the news that the Obama administration is trying to deter agencies from holding conferences in "resort" locations or places where gambling is a big local industry strikes me as a tad silly. As long as a)the conference is set in a place that is economical and convenient, and b) participants make full and effective use of their experience there, I don't think there's anything wrong with holding a conference in Las Vegas, or Orlando, or whatever. If there's a specific part of the conference that involves bonding activities, spending 24/7 with other participants, etc., then it seems reasonable to require that everybody to show up to every mandatory event and to hold the event in a setting conducive to that kind of experience. I can also understand choosing venues that are sensible to folks who suffer from gambling addictions. But if Vegas is the cheapest and most convenient place to hold a large conference, it's silly not to hold it there out of squeamishness.
And, as we know at Government Executive, location is not exactly a barrier to a federal employee, or to anyone, acting like a fool or a lunatic while out of the office.
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Staff Correspondent Alyssa Rosenberg takes a look at news affecting the management and operations of the massive federal bureaucracy.
what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Why with todays technology and CS whining about telework aren't these conferences held at the work site??
dan m ketter Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:32 PMWhatever finally happened to the "duck guy"? I remember the incident being reported but don't recall seeing reporting on the final disposition of any criminal charges or if his agency took any administrative action. I was also wondering whether it was ever established that he actually ate the duck.
mike Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:45 AMMany many Federal departments and agencies have excellent training facilities and under OMB guidelines these must be utilized before private facilities. This is a good policy. And many of these training facilities could be used or shared with other agencies!
William R. Cumming Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:54 AMBut an even bigger issue is the cozy relationship between private for-profit conferences wherein federal appointees and officials attend and pay the conference fees. In fact this is direct federal participation in subsidization of the private conference. Attendance should be permitted at profit making conferences only if fees are waived. Additionally, where major policy addresses are being made, the conference should be NON-profit and open to the public. Utilizing private conferences to make policy addressess is simple favortism and an abuse of power. The ability to accept travel and room and board should also be looked at closely. Many times federal appointees and officials have been referred to the Public Integrity Section of DOJ for billing the agency and at the same time accept these expenses. Because most federal ethics offices that approval acceptance of expenses at a conference (and waiver of fees also needs ethics review) but don't see travel reimbursement by the agency there needs to be a better link fashioned between the agency ethics offices and the travel reimbursement function. This is a complicated arena because the privately sponsored conferences do support agency missions sometimes but definitely should always be open to the public for all sessions. Otherwise just favoritism for certain interested persons.
My concern is weather or not the conferences are being held at the most cost effective location. In Los Vegas, facilities can be cheap because the extra costs are intended to be recovered by the gambling, drinking and entertainment. Some of that cost may come out of the pockets of the attendees. One way or another, Vegas will get the money.
I have attended various government sponsered events in the past. It seemed to me that many of the attendees put greater emphasis on the government funded vacation than on the conference. Some people go to great lengths to justify being sent to these conferences even if it has little relevance to their duties. To me that means that some people that should be there are being pushed out by people who don't need to be.
I have also noticed that just because the attendees are present at the conferences doesn't mean they are actually there. If their nights are spent drinking and gambling instead of resting, whats left for the daytime?
Party towns like Las Vegas can bring out the child in people when they need to be responsible adults. I have seen it first hand. If it costs a little more for less distraction, its well worth it in the end.
Snerdguy Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 7:30 AMYour article presumes the cost of the travel will be reasonable. That is a false premise. Government travel is very costly because the government travel contracts are never the lowest fare (they must be unrestricted, which is the highest price). Further, it is the appearance of impropriety and the public's perception that the government should be concerned with in these tough economic times. Most, if not all agencies have access to internal and web-based learning tools (Go To Meeting, sharepoint, etc). This is what we should use instead of bonus travel reminiscent of AIG perks. We must always be good stewards of the taxpayer's dollars. I am a taxpayer and I approved of this message.
Evelyn Golden Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 8:51 AMWorking in SoCal and knowing the Command has the opportunity to setup or hold very large conferences in any big city, it strikes me as very strange that they alway seem to select a posh resort location. One year it is Vegas, another year, Palm Springs, next time San Diego (on the waterfront, of course). They totally overlook the local economy, locations closer to home,or even what is here on their own post. Of course, the golf course is important too.
I agree that the government needs to stop wasting resources, travel dollars and TDY funds to hold these meeting at resort locations. There ARE other options and more cost effective locations, such as college campuses, more moderate priced hotels, other services facilities to name a few. Gambling and golfing should not be a factor in consideration of location.
Desert Rat Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:14 AMConcur.
We could hold all government conferences in D.C. -- $250 a night hotel rooms, expensive flights in and out of... or in Vegas where over 1/2 rooms are under $50 (overbuilt) and flights are cheap.
We could have them in place like Detroit... but who would show up?
FJ Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:37 AM"Government travel is very costly because the government travel contracts are never the lowest fare (they must be unrestricted, which is the highest price)."
Not necessarily. On most routes, the government airfares are negotiated rates that include the rights to change at no extra charge or to cancel and get a full refund. If you know your travel plans early enough to get a cheap fare, and your plans don't change or your trip doesn't get cancelled, then this statement is probably true. But for last-minute travel, or if you discover the day before you planned to return that you need to stay another couple of days (and it happens), then the negotiated, contract carrier rate almost always saves the government money. And that's only the airfare. Have you ever compared the GSA per-diem government rates at hotels to what you can get on your own? Only in my dreams can I stay most places for what the government pays.
M. Stowe Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:58 PM